<p>Actually, my spelling is perfectly appropriate in the circumstance. Again, you won, but do you know the concept of Pyhrric victory? And if your only point were what you said, why the vehemence over such a small issue?</p>
<p>I am a UCSF grad and I don't care.</p>
<p>a Pyrrhic victory (the h comes after the rr) would assume that i had somehow sustained major setbacks / damage / concession.</p>
<p>seeing that i haven't sustained any of the above - i.e. that my point stands firm, you and others have acknowledged as much, and i haven't budged from my position, i don't see how that qualifies as a Pyrrhic victory.</p>
<p>that's really all i have to say and i don't have any intention to pursue this matter any further.</p>
<p>UCB : UCSF :: China : Taiwan :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't understand why people claim that UCSF is Cal's Med School. </p>
<p>UCSF is UCSF. It's not UC Berekely Medical School.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I believe people were saying this in a loose, colloquial sense, not in a literal sense.. It's like how some people say that MIT is the engineering school of Harvard (or is it that Harvard is the humanities school of MIT?), due to all of the cross-registration and joint projects that happen between the two schools. Nobody who says that literally believes that Harvard and MIT are the same school. It's just a way to convey the notion of shared resources.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i have no affilitaion to Cal or UCSF, so i have no dog in this fight.</p>
<p>i'm just setting the record straight. nothing more, nothing less.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>no, but I'm betting you're an ivy-leaguer/private equivalent that dislikes how much international attention that lil public over there in Berkeley gets... and holy **** if people think they happen to be even affiliated with that world-renown Medical School across the bay</p>
<p>:O</p>
<p>Reminds me of how the U.S. Army Air Corps used to be part of the Army, but sorta separate, and then it became its own entity (U.S. Air Force) in 1947. Or how Montenegro's people tend to be ethnic Serbs, but they're sorta different from Serbs from Serbia. Or how when Baby Spice went off on her own, she was still sorta a Spice Girl in a lot of ways.</p>
<p>
[quote]
UCB : UCSF :: China : Taiwan
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Haha, yes.</p>
<p>And on a related note, I think that Pan Blue coalition of Taiwan claims to be the rightful owner of all of China, including the mainland and Tibet.
That'll be the day when someone declares Cal to be part of UCSF. :D</p>
<p>I am drawn to this conversation like a moth to flame.</p>
<p>Actually, you really hit the nail on the head, Dranakin. Since someone made the forceful claim that people were carelessly identifying UCSF as "Cal's Med School" and then he attacked those very same putative people for their extreme carelessness (though it was unclear that anybody was really making these claims in any formal way), there has been talk of a UCSF cabal that is resentful of Cal. So UCSF is moving to annex Cal. George Bush may send in the 7th Fleet to the Bay. We may have to adopt a "one university, two systems" formulation. Good call.</p>
<p>"UCSF has been considered the #4-5 med school in the nation for decades (Hopkins, Harvard and Stanford usual top 3)."</p>
<p>*I don't think Stanford's Med Schools could be any better than UCSF. Even US News did not rank Stanford's Med higher than UCSF. Harvard and JHU are the two best but Yale and UCSF do always place behind. Stanford in always rank outside of ther top 5. *</p>
<p>"UCSF has been considered the #4-5 med school in the nation for decades (Hopkins, Harvard and Stanford usual top 3)."</p>
<p>*I don't think Stanford's Med Schools could be any better than UCSF. Even US News did not rank Stanford's Med higher than UCSF. Harvard and JHU are the two best but Yale and UCSF do always place behind. Stanford in always rank outside of ther top 5. *</p>
<p>A Stanford med resident once told me that she didn't get offered a position at UCSF, but that ironically a lot of people assume Stanford is better. But she said, it's actually the other way around, UCSF is superior. Anyway, at that level where both -- and all the schools you mentioned -- are tremendous, it probably boils down to which specialty you are talking about.</p>
<p>Med school rankings for 2006-2007 (for anyone who was curious, I was :)):</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Hopkins</li>
<li>UPenn</li>
<li>UCSF</li>
<li>WUSTL</li>
<li>Duke</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>U of Washington</li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Baylor</li>
<li>Columbia</li>
<li>UCLA</li>
<li>University of Michigan, Ann Arbor</li>
<li>UCSD</li>
<li>Cornell </li>
<li>UCI</li>
</ol>
<p>Stanford's medical school has had up's and down's and made some real improvements following a harsh review by the LCME in 1998.
[quote]
The national agency that accredits medical schools came close to placing Stanford's School of Medicine on probation this winter due to the condition of the school's educational facilities, members of the University's faculty senate learned Thursday.
[/quote]
<p>The medical school earned high marks in it's 2006 LCME survey.
[quote]
After 18 months of preparation, the School of Medicine has passed its big test with high marks, earning full accreditation for the next eight years.</p>
<p>The news arrived in a letter mid-March from the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, the national group that accredits medical schools in the United States and Canada. The LCME's survey team visited the campus in October and reviewed materials presented by the medical school before issuing its 205-page report detailing the school's strengths, as well noting a few areas where it hopes to see progress.</p>
<p>"This was an outstanding report," said Oscar Salvatierra, MD, professor of surgery and of pediatrics and the faculty leader for the effort, noting that it was an "incredible turnaround from 1997," when the LCME cited a number of significant problem areas. The success, he added, can be credited in part to the "great faculty and students who came together to present the best the medical school had."
[/quote]
<p>Stanford's US News ranking has not varied much over this period:<br>
10 in 1998
9 in 2000
9 in 2001
11 in 2002
8 in 2003
9 in 2004
8 in 2005
7 in 2006</p>
<p>The Dean of the medical school said in 2002:
[quote]
Among its great strengths is that Stanford is a small school (indeed, the smallest of its peer schools and only a tenth the size of Harvard, for example) with an outstanding faculty and student body. Indeed by most every metric Stanford excels. On a per capita basis, Stanford is at the very top in the amount of competitive NIH funding it receives per faculty member a surrogate measure for overall faculty excellence. More importantly, the quality of the research at Stanford is breathtaking. Further, the advantage of a small faculty is that it promotes greater interaction and collaboration in research and increased contact and involvement with our students. However, the methodology employed by US News & World Report does not measure that excellence accurately.</p>
<p>Instead, US News & World Report places a very high value on the total amount of NIH funding. This obviously favors schools that have a large faculty size, many of which have also grown substantially during the past several years in order to take advantage of the doubling of the NIH budget. More faculty simply means a higher amount of funding but says nothing about the quality of the research or the amount of support per faculty member, the more important measure in which Stanford tops the list. Indeed, this is not even considered in the current ranking methodology.</p>
<p>The current methodology also includes faculty-student ratios as an important metric further impacting Stanford. We believe having a small but highly distinguished faculty is an advantage. Faculty-student ratios are even further distorted at Stanford since most of our students remain in medical school for five or more years, thus increasing the relative student body. However, we also believe this permits our students to learn with greater flexibility and success.
[/quote]
<p>
[quote]
no, but I'm betting you're an ivy-leaguer/private equivalent that dislikes how much international attention that lil public over there in Berkeley gets
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is uncalled for. I know the_prestige fairly well an I'm quite certain he has no quarrel with public schools per se. Oxford and Cambridge, for example, are public schools, and nobody disputes their prominence.</p>
<p>I agree with sakky about the<em>prestige's tolerance for public colleges. I know for a fact the</em>prestige's butler went to Michigan, his valet is a UCLA alumnus, and the chap who takes care of his polo ponies is a Virginia grad. (But his favorite caddy IS a Cornell man.)</p>
<p>Stanford is harder to get into than UCSF (in fact it has a sub 3% acceptance rate) and the campus is nicer. But UCSF remains my #1 choice when I apply to med school next year (mainly b/c of the cost). UC med schools are exceptionally difficult to get into (even for in-state residents) but are great values if you can get in.</p>